The London Borough of Hackney v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2018] EWHC 2174 (Admin) (14 August 2018)

The London Borough of Hackney v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2018] EWHC 2174 (Admin) (14 August 2018)

The Inspector's failure to give fuller reasons for granting planning permission for the second floor extension was an error of law, but the decision would necessarily have been the same had adequate reasons been given. The Claimant's refusal was not based on planning policy but solely on the unauthorised nature of the extension, which was not a lawful basis for refusal. The Inspector was entitled to award costs against the Claimant for unreasonable behaviour.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2174 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The London Borough of Hackney; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Elaine Cotton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment Following Hearing of Statutory Review
Outcome
Claimant's challenges dismissed; permission to bring the challenge granted but substantive relief refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Retrospective Planning Consent, Costs in Planning Appeals, Lawful Development Certificates
Administrative Law Planning Law Statutory Review Planning Permission Retrospective Planning Consent Costs in Planning Appeals Lawful Development Certificates

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Borough of Hackney

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Elaine Cotton

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment Following Hearing of Statutory Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in law by failing to consider relevant considerations regarding the second floor extension when granting planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's costs decision against the Claimant was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's failure to give fuller reasons for granting planning permission for the second floor extension was an error of law, but the decision would necessarily have been the same had adequate reasons been given. The Claimant's refusal was not based on planning policy but solely on the unauthorised nature of the extension, which was not a lawful basis for refusal. The Inspector was entitled to award costs against the Claimant for unreasonable behaviour.

Court Disposition

Claimant's challenges dismissed; permission to bring the challenge granted but substantive relief refused.